Youth Crime Adult Time

Youth Crime/Adult Time http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/ycat/ycat.html
Youth Crime/Adult Time: Is Justice Served?
By Jolanta Juszkiewicz, from the Pretrial Services Resource Center
Order printed copies of this report
Executive Summary
I. INTRODUCTION
Over the last ten years, nearly every state has changed its laws to make it easier to prosecute juveniles
as adults. Traditionally, since a separate court for young people was created in Chicago in 1899,
juveniles who broke the law were brought before the juvenile court. In rare cases, judges decided which
youth were so violent or such chronic offenders that they were "not amenable to treatment" in the
juvenile court. In such cases the jurisdiction of the juvenile court was "waived" and the youth were
transferred to adult criminal court. Some states had legislation that automatically excluded youth
charged with the most serious offenses, notably murder, from juvenile court jurisdiction.
Recently, however, states throughout the country have passed a variety of measures to send more youth
to criminal court. These measure include any or a combination of the following: lowering the age at
which juveniles can be prosecuted as adults; greatly expanding the categories of crimes for which youth
are automatically prosecuted in criminal court; giving prosecutors the exclusive authority to decide
which juveniles are charged as adults; and limiting the discretion of judges to overturn decisions by
prosecutors and law enforcement ofﬁcials.
This shift in policy has occurred at a time of growing awareness of and concern about disproportionate
representation of minorities in both the adult and juvenile justice systems. Numerous reports, including
two by the Building Blocks for Youth initiative, have shown that youth of color are over-represented in
the populations held in detention facilities and transferred from juvenile to adult court. In the Building
Blocks for Youth report, "And Justice For Some: Differential Treatment of Minority Youth in the Justice
System," the research demonstrates that minority youth experience a "cumulative disadvantage" as they
move from arrest to referral on charges, to adjudication, to disposition or sentencing, and ﬁnally to
incarceration.
Disproportionate representation is not the same thing as racial bias. Some argue that over-representation
of minority youth in the justice system is simply a result of minority youth committing more crimes
than White youth. Even when that is the case, a fair analysis, however, requires consideration of police
practices such as targeting patrols in low-income neighborhoods, locations of offenses (on the street or
in homes), differences in delinquent behavior by minority and White youth, differential reactions of
crime victims to offenses committed by White or minority youth, and racial bias by decisionmakers in
1 of 64 11/12/09 9:55 PM
Youth Crime/Adult Time http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/ycat/ycat.html
the system. As noted in And Justice for Some, a meta-analysis of studies on race and the juvenile justice
system, two-thirds of the studies of disproportionate minority conﬁnement showed negative "race
effects" at one stage or another of the juvenile justice process.
This study, the ﬁrst of its kind, takes an in-depth look at the prosecution of minority youth in criminal
court. It is distinctive in several ways. First, it includes the full range of "transfer" mechanisms, e.g.,
judicial decisions, prosecutorial decisions, and legislative exclusions. Second, the study is broad-based,
examining all the major decision points in criminal case processing, from arrest to ﬁnal disposition.
Third, there are a sufﬁcient number of Latino youth to consider them separately in the analysis. Fourth,
this is a multi-jurisdictional study of juvenile cases prosecuted in adult courts in 18 large urban counties
across the country. Finally, the ﬁndings are based on data gathered speciﬁcally for this study and not
from secondary sources.
While the study echoes some of the ﬁndings of earlier reports regarding over-representation and
disparate treatment of minority youth, it also reveals disturbing aspects of the transfer process. In effect,
in most cases, there is no longer an actual "transfer" process. In a marked departure from tradition, most
determinations (85%) to prosecute juveniles as adults are not made by judges, but instead by
prosecutors or legislatures. Moreover, although prosecution in criminal court is thought to be reserved
for youth charged with the most serious offenses, this study indicates that many youth who are sent to
the adult system have cases that are dismissed, resolved without conviction or transferred back to the
juvenile justice system, scarcely justifying their prosecution in adult court, detention in adult jails, and
subsequent incarceration in adult jails and prisons. Particular disparities in the prosecution of minority
youth are also evident. Thus, this research raises serious questions about the fairness and
appropriateness of prosecuting youth in the adult criminal justice system.
II. METHODOLOGY
A. Sample
This study includes cases that involved a juvenile charged with at least one felony offense. All the cases
that were ﬁled between January 1, 1998 and June 30, 1998 in 18 criminal courts were tracked from the
ﬁling date to ﬁnal adjudication (i.e., dismissal or sentencing) in adult court or until March 31,1999,
whichever occurred ﬁrst. The jurisdictions are:
Jefferson County (Birmingham), AL
Maricopa County (Phoenix), AZ
Pima County (Tucson), AZ
Los Angeles County (Los Angeles), CA
Orange County (Santa Ana), CA
Dade County (Miami), FL
Hillsborough County (Tampa), FL
2 of 64 11/12/09 9:55 PM
Youth Crime/Adult Time http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/ycat/ycat.html
Orange County (Orlando), FL
Marion County (Indianapolis), IN
Baltimore City, MD
St. Louis County (St. Louis), MO
Bronx County (Bronx), NY
Kings County (Brooklyn), NY
New York County (Manhattan), NY
Queens County (Queens), NY
Philadelphia County (Philadelphia), PA
Harris County (Houston), TX
Milwaukee County (Milwaukee), WI
There are 2,584 cases in the study. They represent 100% of the total number of cases involving White,
African-American, and Latino youth that were ﬁled in the criminal court involving juveniles in the 18
jurisdictions for the ﬁrst six months of 1998.
The 18 jurisdictions selected for this study were drawn from those that participate in the State Court
Processing Statistics (SCPS) project of the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.
Conducted biennially since 1988, SCPS tracks for one year a sample of felony cases ﬁled during one
month in 40 jurisdictions representative of the 75 most populous jurisdictions in the country. The
jurisdictions that had the highest numbers of juvenile felony charges ﬁled in adult court during the 1996
series of SCPS (the last year for which datawere available) were selected to participate in this study.
This produced a sample of 18 jurisdictions, with the remainder having too few cases to warrant
inclusion.
B. Deﬁnitions
For the purposes of this report, these terms are deﬁned as follows:
Youth or juvenile: An individual who has not reached the statutorily deﬁned upper age for original
juvenile court jurisdiction in the state in which he or she is charged, be that 15, 16, or 17.
Minority: An individual who is of a race other than White or who is of Latino ethnicity, regardless of
race.
Disproportionate representation or over-representation: The proportion of a group with a speciﬁc
characteristic that exceeds the proportion of that group in the population being considered. Thus, if
Latino youth in a certain county make up 25% of arrests and 50% of youth tried as adults, that group's
3 of 64 11/12/09 9:55 PM
Youth Crime/Adult Time http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/ycat/ycat.html
proportion of juveniles tried as adults would constitute disproportionate representation.
Disparity: Different treatment of individuals who are similarly situated or have common characteristics.
Felony: A crime punishable by more than a year imprisonment.
Violent offenses: Include murder, rape, robbery, assault, and other crimes against persons such as
domestic violence and negligent homicide.
Property offenses: Include burglary, theft, motor vehicle theft, fraud, forgery, and other property crimes
such as arson, damage to property, and buying or receiving stolen property.
Drug offenses: Include drug trafﬁcking, drug sales and delivery, drug possession, and other drug
offenses such as possession of drug paraphernalia.
Public order offenses: Include weapons, felony trafﬁc, and other public order offenses such as
gambling, prostitution, rioting, corruption or escape from custody.
Transfer back: The process, available in some states, in which a juvenile charged in criminal court by a
prosecutor or automatically by statute may petition the court for transfer "back" to the juvenile court.
Detention or pretrial detention: Locked conﬁnement in a juvenile detention facility or an adult jail while
the case is pending.
Public defenders: Attorneys employed in government ofﬁces to represent youth in juvenile or adult
court.
Private counsel: Attorneys retained and paid byjuveniles and their families to provide representation.
Assigned counsel: Private attorneys chosen by judges and compensated from public funds torepresent
juveniles in particular cases. Assigned counsel are often utilized in jurisdictions where there is no
existing or no full-time public defender program, or when there are multiple defendants charged in one
case who require separate counsel.
C. Analyses
The analysis of the data entails making comparisons between minority and White youth across all
jurisdictions (aggregate analysis) as well as jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction analysis. Aggregate analyses
report overall or average ﬁndings. In some situations, the aggregate ﬁndings may mask signiﬁcant
differences among the 18 jurisdictions. Consequently, where appropriate, the study presents site-by-site
ﬁndings in addition to the aggregate ﬁndings. Indeed, a number of the aggregate ﬁndings suggest that
the transfer process is not working as expected, yet these ﬁndings may not be true for any particular
jurisdiction in the study.
Several types of analyses are performed in this study. First, the study looks at over-representation. For
example, is the percentage of African-American youth charged as adults higher than the percentage of
African-American youth who were arrested for felony offenses? Second, the study looks at possible
disparities among racial and ethnic groups, i.e., of youth charged in adult court for drug felonies, are
minority youth treated more severely than White youth? Third, the study examines differences across
4 of 64 11/12/09 9:55 PM
Youth Crime/Adult Time http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/ycat/ycat.html
groups by asking, within each racial/ethnic group, the percentage of the group charged with a certain
category of crime (or released before trial, or convicted, or sentenced to incarceration, etc.), comparing
the percentages across groups.
Finally, the study provides ﬁndings on the overall impact on youth of the transfer process, regardless of
race, by examining whether and when youth are released on the charges (either with or without money
bail), the amount of bail, and the percentage of youth ultimately convicted of the charges.
III. STUDY OVERVIEW
The study found that minority youth, particularly African-American youth, were over-represented and
received disparate treatment at several stages of the process. In some jurisdictions, African-American
youth were over-represented in felony charges ﬁled in adult court compared to their percentage in the
felony arrest population, most evident in charges for drug and public order offenses. African-American
youth were signiﬁcantly less likely to be represented by private counsel, and youth represented by
private counsel were less likely to be convicted of a felony and more likely to be transferred back to
juvenile court. Of youth not convicted of their original charges, White youth were twice as likely as
minority youth to have their charges reduced to a misdemeanor.
African-American youth were more likely to be held pretrial in adult jails, while Latino youth were
more likely to be held in juvenile facilities.
In other aspects of the process, minority youth received treatment comparable to or even more
favorable than White youth. For example, of youth released on bail, the average amount of bail for
African-American youth was signiﬁcantly lower than for White youth, and the average bail for White
youth was signiﬁcantly lower than for Latino youth. Violent cases involving White youth took longer to
adjudicate than those involving minority youth.
A number of the ﬁndings raise signiﬁcant concerns about the manner in which youth, regardless of race,
are prosecuted in the adult criminal justice system. First, 85% of determinations of whether tocharge a
juvenile as an adult were not made by judges, but by prosecutors or by legislatures through statutory
exclusions from juvenile court. Second, prosecution in adult court is expected to be reserved for youth
charged with the most serious offenses. However, several of the ﬁndings in this report suggest that
cases brought against youth prosecuted as adults were either not particularly serious or not very strong.
For example, a substantial portion of those prosecuted as adults were charged with non-violent
offenses, and many were not convicted or were transferred back to the juvenile court for disposition. If
one of the main goals of these transfer laws was to adjudicate cases of children who commit severe
offenses in the adult criminal justice system, this study suggests that this goal is not being achieved.
The ﬁndings suggest that the adult criminal court is taking on numerous cases that should be prosecuted
in the juvenile justice system. Furthermore, despite the fact that a great many youth had their cases
dismissed, reduced to misdemeanors, or transferred, two-thirds of the youth who were detained pretrial
were held in adults jails.
IV. MAJOR FINDINGS
A. Felony Arrests
5 of 64 11/12/09 9:55 PM
Youth Crime/Adult Time http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/ycat/ycat.html
Arrest ﬁgures were available for 10 of the 18 jurisdictions and only for African-American youth.
(Available ﬁgures combined White and Latino youth.)
In 9 of the 10 jurisdictions, African-American youth were disproportionately charged in adult
court. This means that the proportion of African-American youth whose felony cases were ﬁled
in the adult courts was higher than the proportion of African-American youth who were arrested
for felony offenses.
African-American youth were over-represented especially in drug and public order offense cases.
Although African-American youth accounted for 64% of all juveniles arrested for felony drug
offenses, they represented 76% of the drug offenses that were ﬁled in adult court. Similarly, while
African-American youth accounted for two-thirds (68%) of all youth arrested for public order
offenses, they represented over three-fourths (76%) of all youth whose public order offenses were
ﬁled in adult court.
In some jurisdictions, the disproportionate number of African-American youth whose cases were
ﬁled in adult court was dramatic. In Jefferson County, Alabama, for example, African-American
youth accounted for approximately 3 out of 10 felony arrests, but represented 8 out of 10 felony
cases ﬁled in criminal court.
B. Charges Filed
During the ﬁrst six months of 1998, in the 18 jurisdictions in the study, the overwhelming
majority (82%) of cases that were ﬁled in adult courts involved minority youth. African-
American males constituted over half (52%) of the entire sample.
There were variations among the participating jurisdictions, with minority youth constituting
60% - 100% of those youth prosecuted as adults. In one-third of the sites, minority youth
represented 90% or more of the cases ﬁled.
In six of the sites African-American youth made up three-quarters of the entire sample. In ﬁve of
the sites, Latino youth constituted 40% or more of the sample. There was only one site where
White youth represented as many as 40% of the sample. Eight sites had less than 7% Latino
representation in their sample, while in three sites Latino youth represented more than half of the
sample.
In all of the major categories of offenses charged-i.e., violent, property, drug, and public order-the
highest percentage of cases involved African-American youth.
Although African-American youth accounted for 57% of all charges in the study, they comprised
more than 85% of drug charges and 74% of public order charges.
Drug cases were ﬁled against African-American youth at ﬁve times the rate of White youth (17%
vs. 3%) and three times the rate of Latino youth (5%). Twice as many African-American youth
were charged with public order offenses (8%) as White youth (4%). Five percent of Latino youth
were charged with public order offenses.
6 of 64 11/12/09 9:55 PM
Youth Crime/Adult Time http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/ycat/ycat.html
Although the aggregate ﬁndings showed that minority youth were more likely to have charges for
violent crimes than White youth, this analysis masked differences in individual sites. In half of
the sites, White youth were more likely than minority youth to have violent cases ﬁled in adult
court.
C. Charging Mechanism
Most determinations (85%) whether to charge a juvenile as an adult were not made by judges.
This was even more true for African-American youth, 89% of whom were charged in adult court
through direct ﬁle or statutory waiver.
More than 45% of cases resulted from direct ﬁling by prosecutors.
In almost 40% of the cases, the charges automatically excluded youth from juvenile court
jurisdiction.
7 of 64 11/12/09 9:55 PM
Youth Crime/Adult Time http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/ycat/ycat.html
D. Pretrial Release and Detention
The majority of youth in the sample, regardless of category of offense, were released before trial.
There were differences in individual sites. While most sites released more juveniles than they
detained, in three sites (Los Angeles and Orange Counties, California and Harris County, Texas)
around 90% of their juveniles were detained pending trial.
For violent, property, and public order offenses, there were virtually no differences in the release
rates among the racial/ethnic groups. For youth charged with drug offenses, however, a higher
percentage of White youth (86%) were released pretrial than African-American youth (67%).
For youth who were released on bail, the average bail amount was signiﬁcantly lower for
African-American youth ($8,761) than for White youth ($10,174) and Latino youth ($13,556).
Signiﬁcant numbers of youth were released on non-ﬁnancial conditions: two-thirds of Latino
youth, half of African-American youth, and 40% of White youth.
Signiﬁcant numbers of youth were not held longer than 24 hours: almost half of minority youth
(46% African-American and 45% Latino) were released the same day they were charged, and
more than half were released within 24 hours. Forty percent of white youth were released within
24 hours.
8 of 64 11/12/09 9:55 PM
Youth Crime/Adult Time http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/ycat/ycat.html
E. Place of Pretrial Detention
Nearly two-thirds of the detained juveniles in the sample were held in adult jails pending
disposition of their cases. Of those, one-third were conﬁned with the general population of adult
inmates.
In four of the jurisdictions (Pima County, Arizona; Marion County, Indiana; St. Louis County,
Missouri; and Harris County, Texas) all youth were held pretrial in adult jails. In the four New
York sites, all juveniles were held in juvenile detention facilities. In the remaining sites, youth
were held either in adult jails or juvenile facilities
F. Results of Prosecution
In nearly one-third of the 18 jurisdictions in the study, less than half of the youth were convicted.
9 of 64 11/12/09 9:55 PM
Youth Crime/Adult Time http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/ycat/ycat.html
Overall, substantial numbers of youth were not convicted, and signiﬁcantly fewer African-
American youth were convicted than other youth. Forty-three percent of African-American youth
were not convicted, as were 28% of Latino youth and 24% of White youth.
African-American were much more likely to have their cases transferred back to juvenile court.
The rate for such transfer back for African-American youth was nearly three times as high as for
White youth (13% vs. 5%).
Less than half (46%) of African-American youth prosecuted for a violent offense in adult court
were convicted. In fact, 20% of African-American youth prosecuted for violent offenses had their
cases transferred back to juvenile court. Similarly, less than half (45%) of public order offenses
against African-American youth resulted in conviction.
For violent offenses, the median time frame from ﬁling to adjudication was 126 days for White
youth, compared to 88 days for African-American youth and 97 days for Latino youth.
Of youth not convicted of their original charges, White youth were twice as likely as minority
youth to have their charges reduced to a misdemeanor (13% of White youth vs. 6% of African-
American youth and 5% Latino youth).
G. Attorney
A majority of all three racial/ethnic groups were represented by public defenders. White youth
were twice as likely as African-American youth to have retained private counsel (21% vs. 11%).
Youth represented by private attorneys were less likely to be convicted and more likely to be
transferred back to juvenile court, regardless of racial/ethnic group.
H. Sentences
African-American (43%) and Latino (37%) youth were more likely than White youth (26%) to
receive a sentence of incarceration (as opposed to a split sentence or probation). This held true
when controlling for the adjudicated offense. For example, of those convicted of a violent
offense, 58% of African-American youth and 46% of Latino youth received a sentence of
incarceration, compared to 34% of White youth.
Of those sentenced to prison, African-American youth in almost all offense categories had longer
sentences than White or Latino youth.
For those convicted of drug offenses, a lower percentage of African-American youth (37%)
received probation than White youth (44%) or Latino youth (53%).
10 of 64 11/12/09 9:55 PM
Youth Crime/Adult Time http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/ycat/ycat.html
V. CONCLUSION
Like the earlier reports by the Building Blocks for Youth initiative, this research raises serious concerns
about the fairness of the justice system. The data indicate that minority youth, particularly African-
American youth, receive disparate treatment at several points in the process. On the other hand, the data
demonstrate that the system is not monolithic, and minority youth actually receive more favorable
treatment (or treatment that seems more favorable) in some circumstances. One value of this research is
that it allows a more in-depth examination of these issues. In this study, however, it was impossible to
explore in detail the reasons why these disparities exist. Consequently, there is a strong need for more
comprehensive research in this area. One partial explanation for some disparity is that White youth
were twice as likely as African-American youth to be represented by private counsel who are burdened
by the high caseloads that public defenders carry.
Perhaps the most signiﬁcant contribution of this research is the spotlight it throws on those aspects of
the justice system that appear to work contrary to traditional reasons for prosecution of youth in adult
court. The decision to prosecute a juvenile as an adult has momentous consequences for the individual
involved. This study found that nearly two-thirds of the juveniles detained pretrial were held in adult
jails pending disposition of their cases. Of those, one-third were conﬁned with the general adult inmate
population. Yet, the overall high pretrial release rates (often with no bail required), high non-conviction
rates, and high probation rates suggest that the cases ﬁled in adult court in many instances may not be
sufﬁciently serious or strong. Since most states have committed themselves to increased prosecution of
juveniles in adult court, this is clearly an area that requires additional research, policy review, and new
legislation to ensure that young people are not unnecessarily and inappropriately swept up into the adult
criminal justice system.
Youth Crime/Adult Time:
11 of 64 11/12/09 9:55 PM
Youth Crime/Adult Time http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/ycat/ycat.html
Is Justice Served?
I. INTRODUCTION
Over the last ten years, nearly every state has changed its laws to make it easier to prosecute juveniles
as adults. Traditionally, since a separate court for young people was created in Chicago in 1899,
juveniles who broke the law were brought before the juvenile court. In rare cases, judges decided which
youth were so violent or such chronic offenders that they were "not amenable to treatment" in the
juvenile court. In such cases the jurisdiction of the juvenile court was "waived" and the youth were
transferred to adult criminal court. Some states had legislation that automatically excluded youth
charged with the most serious offenses, notably murder, from juvenile court jurisdiction.
Recently, however, states throughout the country have passed a variety of measures to send more youth
to criminal court. These measures include any or a combination of the following: (1) lowering the age
at which juveniles can be prosecuted as adults; (2) greatly expanding the categories of crimes for which
youth are automatically prosecuted in criminal court; (3) giving prosecutors the exclusive authority to
decide which juveniles are charged as adults; and (4) limiting the discretion of judges to overturn
decisions by prosecutors and law enforcement ofﬁcials.
This shift in policy has occurred at a time of growing awareness of and concern about disproportionate
representation of minorities in both the adult and juvenile justice systems. Numerous reports, including
those by the Building Blocks for Youth initiative, have shown that youth of color are over-represented in
the populations held in detention facilities and transferred from juvenile to adult court. In the Building
Blocks for Youth report, And Justice for Some: Differential Treatment of Minority Youth in the Justice
System, the research demonstrates that minority youth experience a "cumulative disadvantage" as they
move from arrest to referral on charges, to adjudication, to disposition or sentencing, and ﬁnally to
incarceration.1
The Ofﬁce of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) issued a report in 1999 showing
that in 1997, minority youth comprised about one-third of the juvenile population nationwide, yet
nearly two-thirds of the youth detained and committed to secure juvenile detention facilities.2 These
disparities were much larger for African-American youth. While comprising 15 percent of the juvenile
population, African-American youth accounted for 26 percent of juveniles arrested and 45 percent of
cases involving detention.3
A number of sources have shown that overrepresentation of minorities also exists in the waiver of cases
from juvenile to adult court. According to an OJJDP report on the number of cases waived to adult
court between 1988 and 1997,4 those involving African-American youth increased 35 percent,
compared to a 14 percent rise for White youth.5 There were similar ﬁndings in studies of individual
states. For example:
Compared to White youth, African-American and Latino juveniles in California were six times
more likely to have their cases transferred to adult court, according to the Building Blocks for
Youth report, The Color of Justice: An Analysis of Juvenile Adult Court Transfers in California.
Furthermore, looking at Los Angeles County alone, Latino juveniles were six times and African-
American juveniles were 12 times more likely to face prosecution as adults.6
12 of 64 11/12/09 9:55 PM
Youth Crime/Adult Time http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/ycat/ycat.html
According to a 1998 report published by the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, African-
American juveniles made up only 23 percent of Florida's population of youth ages 10 through 17,
but 41 percent of all juvenile cases, and 54 percent of all the cases transferred to adult court in FY
1996-97. These ﬁgures were unchanged from the previous year. The data also showed that in four
of Florida's districts, between 60 and 68 percent of all the youth transferred to adult court were
African-American.7
A 1995 study published by the Maryland Department of Juvenile Justice reported that 73 percent
of the cases waived from juvenile court in Maryland involved African-American juveniles.8
A 1994 study in Ohio showed that African-American youth represented 62 percent of all youth
whose cases were waived to adult court. The study also showed that in Ohio's six large urban
counties, between 64 and 82 percent of all youth transferred to adult court were African-
American.9
A Minnesota study found that minority youth comprised 88 percent of the youths who
prosecutors sought to waive in 1992.10
The General Accounting Ofﬁce published a report in 1995 that focused on juvenile cases waived
to adult court in several states in 1990 and 1991. In California, for example, 94 percent of the
juvenile cases waived to adult court involved African-American youth. In Missouri, 70.5 percent
of the youth waived to adult court were African-American. In Pennsylvania, African-American
youth accounted for 56 percent of the cases waived to adult court.11
Disproportionate representation is not the same thing as racial bias. Some argue that over-representation
of minority youth in the justice system is simply a result of minority youth committing more crimes
than White youth. Even when that is the case, a fair analysis, however, requires consideration of certain
police practices. These include targeting patrols in low-income neighborhoods, locations of offenses
(on the street or in homes), differences in delinquent behavior by minority and White youth, differential
reactions of crime victims to offenses committed by White or minority youth, and racial bias by
decision-makers in the system. As noted in the last Building Blocks for Youth report, And Justice for
Some: Differential Treatment of Minority Youth in the Justice System, researchers found that about
two-thirds of the studies of disproportionate minority conﬁnement showed negative "race effects" at
one stage or another of the juvenile justice process.12
This study, which takes an in-depth look at the prosecution of minority youth in criminal court, is
distinctive in several ways. First, it includes the full range of "transfer" mechanisms, e.g., judicial
decisions, prosecutorial decisions, and legislative exclusions. Second, the study is broad-based,
examining all the major decision points in criminal case processing, from arrest to ﬁnal disposition.
Third, there are a sufﬁcient number of Latino youth to consider them separately in the analysis. Fourth,
this is a multi-jurisdictional study of juvenile cases prosecuted in adult courts in 18 large urban
jurisdictions (17 counties and 1 city) across the country. Finally, the ﬁndings are based on data gathered
speciﬁcally for this study and not from secondary sources.
While the study echoes some of the ﬁndings of earlier reports regarding over-representation and
disparate treatment of minority youth, it also reveals disturbing aspects of the transfer process. In effect,
in most cases in this study, there is no longer an actual "transfer" process. In a marked departure from
13 of 64 11/12/09 9:55 PM
Youth Crime/Adult Time http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/ycat/ycat.html
tradition, most determinations (85%) to prosecute juveniles as adults were found not to have been made
by judges, but instead by prosecutors or legislatures. Moreover, some ﬁndings of this study are contrary
to the perception that prosecution in criminal court is reserved for youth charged with the most serious
offenses. Among its ﬁndings are that many youth who are sent to the adult system have cases that are
dismissed, resolved without conviction or transferred back to the juvenile justice system, scarcely
justifying their prosecution in adult court, detention in adult jails, and subsequent incarceration in adult
jails and prisons. Particular disparities in the prosecution of minority youth are also evident. Thus, this
research raises serious questions about the fairness and appropriateness of prosecuting youth in the
adult criminal justice system.
II. METHODOLOGY
A. Sample
This study includes cases that involved a juvenile charged with at least one felony offense. All the cases
that were ﬁled between January 1, 1998 and June 30, 1998 in 18 criminal courts were tracked from the
ﬁling date to ﬁnal adjudication (i.e., dismissal or sentencing) in criminal court or until March 31,1999,
whichever occurred ﬁrst.
The jurisdictions are:
Jefferson County (Birmingham), AL
Maricopa County (Phoenix), AZ
Pima County (Tucson), AZ
Los Angeles County (Los Angeles), CA
Orange County (Santa Ana), CA
Dade County (Miami), FL
Hillsborough County (Tampa), FL
Orange County (Orlando), FL
Marion County (Indianapolis), IN
Baltimore City, MD
St. Louis County, MO
Bronx County (Bronx), NY
Kings County (Brooklyn), NY
New York County (Manhattan), NY
14 of 64 11/12/09 9:55 PM
Youth Crime/Adult Time http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/ycat/ycat.html
Queens County (Queens), NY
Philadelphia County (Philadelphia), PA
Harris County (Houston), TX
Milwaukee County (Milwaukee), WI
There are 2,584 cases in the study. They represent 100% of the total number of cases involving White,
African-American, and Latino youth that were ﬁled in the ﬁrst six months of 1998 in the criminal
courts in 18 jurisdictions.
The 18 jurisdictions selected for this study were drawn from those that participate in the State Court
Processing Statistics (SCPS) project of the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.
Conducted biennially since 1988, SCPS tracks for one year a sample of felony cases ﬁled in criminal
courts during one month in 40 jurisdictions representative of the 75 most populous jurisdictions in the
country. The jurisdictions that had the highest numbers of juvenile felony charges ﬁled in the criminal
court in the 40 jurisdictions during the 1996 series of SCPS (the last year for which data were available)
were selected to participate in this study.13 This produced a sample of 18 large urban jurisdictions, with
the remainder having too few cases to warrant inclusion. While the 18 jurisdictions do not statistically
represent the 40 jurisdictions, they do account for nearly 90% of all cases involving juveniles that were
ﬁled in 1996 in the 40 jurisdictions.
B. Deﬁnitions
For the purposes of this report, these terms are deﬁned as follows:
Youth or juvenile: An individual who has not reached the statutorily deﬁned upper age for original
juvenile court jurisdiction in the state in which he or she is charged, be that 15, 16, or 17.
Minority: An individual who is of a race other than White or who is of Latino ethnicity, regardless of
race. Disproportionate representation or over-representation: The proportion of a group with a speciﬁc
characteristic that exceeds the proportion of that group in the population being considered. Thus, if
Latino youth in a certain county make up 25% of arrests and 50% of youth prosecuted as adults, that
group's proportion of juveniles prosecuted as adults would constitute overrepresentation.
Disparity: Different treatment (i.e., different outcomes) of individuals who are similarly situated or
have common characteristics.
Judicial Waiver: A judge decides whether to transfer a juvenile to adult criminal court for prosecution.
Direct Filing: A prosecutor decides whether to prosecute a juvenile in juvenile court or adult criminal
court.
Statutory Exclusion: The legislature decides by passing a statute that juveniles charged with certain
offenses are excluded from juvenile court jurisdiction and automatically prosecuted in adult criminal
court.
15 of 64 11/12/09 9:55 PM
Youth Crime/Adult Time http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/ycat/ycat.html
Felony: A crime punishable by more than a year imprisonment.
Violent offenses: Include murder, rape, robbery, assault, and other crimes against persons such as
domestic violence and negligent homicide.
Property offenses: Include burglary, theft, motor vehicle theft, fraud, forgery, and other property crimes
such as arson, damage to property, and buying or receiving stolen property.
Drug offenses: Include drug trafﬁcking, drug sales and delivery, drug possession, and other drug
offenses such as possession of drug paraphernalia.
Public order offenses: Include weapons, felony trafﬁc, and other public order offenses such as
gambling, prostitution, rioting, corruption or escape from custody.
Transfer back: The process, available in some states, in which a juvenile charged in criminal court by a
prosecutor or automatically by statute may petition the court for transfer "back" to the juvenile court.
Detention or pretrial detention: Locked conﬁnement in a juvenile detention facility or an adult jail
while the case is pending.
Public defenders: Attorneys employed in government ofﬁces to represent youth in juvenile or adult
court.
Retained private counsel: Attorneys retained and paid by juveniles and their families to provide
representation.
Assigned counsel: Private attorneys chosen by judges and compensated from public funds to represent
juveniles in particular cases. Assigned counsel are often utilized in jurisdictions where there is no
existing or no full-time public defender program, or when there are multiple defendants charged in one
case who require separate counsel.
C. Analyses
The analysis of the data entails making comparisons between minority and White youth across all 18
jurisdictions (aggregate analysis) as well as jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction analysis. Aggregate analyses
report overall or average ﬁndings. In some situations, the aggregate ﬁndings may mask signiﬁcant
differences among the 18 jurisdictions. Consequently, where appropriate, the study presents site-by-site
ﬁndings in addition to the aggregate ﬁndings. Indeed, a number of the aggregate ﬁndings suggest that
the transfer process is not working as expected, yet these ﬁndings may not be true for any particular
jurisdiction in the study.
Several types of analyses are performed in this study. First, the study looks at over-representation. For
example, is the percentage of African-American youth charged as adults higher than the percentage of
African-American youth who were arrested for felony offenses? Second, the study looks at possible
disparities among racial and ethnic groups, i.e., of youth charged in adult court for drug felonies, are
minority youth treated more severely than White youth? Third, the study examines differences across
groups by asking, within each racial/ethnic group, the percentage of the group charged with a certain
category of crime (or released before trial, or convicted, or sentenced to incarceration, etc.), comparing
16 of 64 11/12/09 9:55 PM
Youth Crime/Adult Time http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/ycat/ycat.html
the percentages across groups.
Finally, the study provides ﬁndings on the overall impact on youth of the transfer process, regardless of
race, by examining whether and when youth are released on the charges (either with or without bail),
the amount of bail, and the percentage of youth ultimately convicted of the charges.
The analyses are descriptive rather than explanatory. The speciﬁc reasons or explanations for ﬁndings
of overrepresentation or disparities are beyond the scope of this study. Only in-depth case and
defendant-speciﬁc information, such as the nature of the case, the strength of the evidence, and the
criminal history of the defendant, can provide explanations for certain outcomes. The intention of this
study is to identify the existence, if any, of over-representation or disparities experienced by minority
youth in adult court. Moreover, this study sheds light on what happens to cases involving youth that are
prosecuted in adult court. Should the ﬁndings reveal disparate outcomes for minority youth or that
cases are transferred back to juvenile court, further empirical research would be warranted to delve into
the underlying reasons for those ﬁndings.
III. STUDY OVERVIEW
The study found that minority youth, particularly African-American youth, were over-represented and
received disparate treatment at several stages of the process. In some jurisdictions, African-American
youth were over-represented in felony arrests and felony charges ﬁled in adult court compared to their
percentage in the general juvenile population and the felony arrest population, respectively. This was
most evident in charges for drug and public order offenses. African-American youth were signiﬁcantly
less likely to be represented by retained private counsel, and youth represented by retained private
counsel were less likely to be convicted of a felony and more likely to be transferred back to juvenile
court. Of youth not convicted of their original charges, White youth were twice as likely as minority
youth to have their charges reduced to a misdemeanor. African-American youth were more likely to be
held pretrial in adult jails, while Latino youth were more likely to be held in juvenile facilities. Of
youth who were not convicted of the charges in adult court, African-American youth were twice as
likely as White youth to be detained pending case disposition.
In other aspects of the process, minority youth received treatment comparable to or even more
favorable than White youth. For example, of youth released on bail, the average amount of bail for
African-American youth was signiﬁcantly lower than for White youth, and the average bail for White
youth was signiﬁcantly lower than for Latino youth. Violent cases involving White youth took longer to
adjudicate than those involving minority youth.
A number of the ﬁndings raise signiﬁcant concerns about the manner in which youth, regardless of race,
are prosecuted in the adult criminal justice system. First, 85% of determinations of whether to charge a
juvenile as an adult were not made by judges, but by prosecutors or by legislatures through statutory
exclusions from juvenile court. Second, several of the ﬁndings in this report suggest that the adult
criminal court, rather than being reserved for the most serious cases, is taking on numerous cases that
should be prosecuted in the juvenile justice system. For example, a substantial portion of those
prosecuted as adults were charged with non-violent offenses. Many were not convicted or had their
cases transferred back to the juvenile court for disposition. Third, and most disturbing, is the ﬁnding
that many youth were detained in adult jails pending disposition of their cases. In fact, many youth who
were detained had their cases dismissed, reduced to misdemeanors, or transferred. If one of the main
17 of 64 11/12/09 9:55 PM
Youth Crime/Adult Time http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/ycat/ycat.html
goals of these transfer laws is to adjudicate in the adult criminal justice system only cases of children
who commit severe offenses, the ﬁndings of this study put to question whether this goal is being
achieved.
IV. MAJOR FINDINGS
A. Demographics
In the 18 jurisdictions in this study, in the ﬁrst six months of 1998, 82% of the juvenile cases ﬁled
in the criminal courts involved minority youth, which include African-American, Latino, Asian,
and American Indian youth. White youth accounted for the remaining 18%. Of the minority
youth, African-Americans constituted the largest group, representing 57% of the total sample and
70% of the minority youth. Latino youth accounted for 23% of the total sample and 28% of the
minority youth. African-American males constituted over half (52%) of the entire sample.
B. Felony Arrests
Juvenile population and arrest ﬁgures were available for 10 of the 18 jurisdictions and only for African-
American youth. (Available ﬁgures combined White and Latino youth.)
In 7 of the 10 jurisdictions, African-American youth were disproportionately arrested for felony
offenses. In 9 of the 10 jurisdictions, African-American youth were disproportionately charged in
adult court. In the ﬁrst instance, this means that the proportion of African-American youth who
were arrested for felony offenses was higher than the proportion of African-American youth in
the general juvenile population. In the second, this means that the proportion of African-
American youth whose felony cases were ﬁled in adult courts was higher than the proportion of
African-American youth who were arrested for felony offenses.
African-American youth were over-represented especially in drug and public order offense cases
ﬁled in adult court. Although African-American youth accounted for 64% of all juveniles
arrested for felony drug offenses, they represented 76% of the drug offenses that were ﬁled in
adult court. Similarly, while African-American youth accounted for two-thirds (68%) of all youth
arrested for public order offenses, they represented over three-fourths (76%) of all youth whose
public order offenses were ﬁled in adult court.
In some jurisdictions, the disproportionate number of African-American youth whose cases were
ﬁled in adult court was dramatic. In Jefferson County, Alabama, for example, African-American
youth accounted for approximately 3 out of 10 felony arrests, but comprised 8 out of 10 felony
cases ﬁled in criminal court.
C. Charges Filed
There were variations among the participating jurisdictions with minority youth comprising 60%
to 100% of those youth prosecuted as adults. In one-third of the sites, minority youth represented
90% or more of the cases ﬁled.
18 of 64 11/12/09 9:55 PM
Youth Crime/Adult Time http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/ycat/ycat.html
In six of the sites African-American youth made up three-quarters of the entire sample. In ﬁve of
the sites, Latino youth constituted 40% or more of the sample. There was only one site where
White youth represented as much as 40% of the sample. Eight sites had less than 7% Latino
representation in their sample, while in three sites Latino youth represented more than half of the
sample.
In all of the major categories of offenses charged, i.e., violent, property, drug, and public order,
the highest percentage of cases involved African-American youth.
Although African-American youth accounted for 57% of all charges in the study, they comprised
more than 85% of drug charges and 74% of public order charges.
Drug cases were ﬁled against African-American youth at ﬁve times the rate of White youth (17%
vs. 3%) and three times the rate of Latino youth (5%). Twice as many African-American youth
were charged with public order offenses (8%) as White youth (4%). Five percent of Latino youth
were charged with public order offenses.
Although the aggregate ﬁndings showed that minority youth were more likely to have charges for
violent crimes than White youth, this analysis masked differences in individual sites. In half of
the sites, White youth were more likely than minority youth to have violent cases ﬁled in adult
court.
D. Charging Mechanism
Most determinations (85%) whether to charge a juvenile as an adult were not made by judges.
This was particularly true for African-American youth, 89% of whom were charged in adult court
through direct ﬁle or statutory waiver.
More than 45% of cases resulted from direct ﬁling by prosecutors. In almost 40% of the cases
under state statutes, the charges automatically excluded youth from juvenile court jurisdiction.
E. Pretrial Release and Detention
The majority of youth in the sample, regardless of offense category, were released before trial.
There were differences in individual sites. While most sites released more juveniles than they
detained, in three sites (Los Angeles and Orange Counties, California and Harris County, Texas)
around 90% of their juveniles were detained pending trial.
For violent, property, and public order offenses, there were virtually no differences in the release
rates among the racial/ethnic groups. For youth charged with drug offenses, however, a higher
percentage of White youth (86%) were released pretrial than African-American youth (67%).
For youth who were released on bail, the average bail amount was signiﬁcantly lower for
African-American youth ($8,761) than White youth ($10,174) and Latino youth ($13,556).
Signiﬁcant numbers of youth were released on non-ﬁnancial conditions (e.g., personal
19 of 64 11/12/09 9:55 PM
Youth Crime/Adult Time http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/ycat/ycat.html
recognizance): two-thirds of Latino youth, half of African-American youth, and 40% of White
youth.
Signiﬁcant numbers of youth were not held longer than 24 hours: almost half of minority youth
(46% African-American and 45% Latino) were released the same day they were charged, and
more than half were released within 24 hours. Forty percent of white youth were released within
24 hours.
F. Place of Pretrial Detention
Nearly two-thirds of the detained juveniles in the sample were held in adult jails pending
disposition of their cases. Of those, one-third of the youth were conﬁned with the general
population of adult inmates.
In four of the jurisdictions (Pima County, Arizona; Marion County, Indiana; St. Louis County,
Missouri; and Harris County, Texas) all youth were held pretrial in adult jails. In the four New
York sites, all juveniles were held in juvenile detention facilities. In the remaining sites, youth
were held either in jails or juvenile facilities.
G. Results of Prosecution
In nearly one-third of the 18 jurisdictions in the study, less than half of the youth were convicted.
Overall, substantial numbers of youth were not convicted, and signiﬁcantly fewer African-
American youth were convicted than other youth. Forty-three percent of African-American youth
were not convicted, as were 28% of Latino youth and 24% of White youth.
African-American youth were much more likely to have their cases transferred back to juvenile
court; the rate for such transfer back for African-American youth was nearly three times as high
as for White youth (13% vs. 5%).
Less than half (46%) of African-American youth prosecuted in adult court for violent offenses
were convicted. In fact, 20% of African-American youth prosecuted for violent offenses had their
cases transferred back to juvenile court. Similarly, less than half (45%) of public order offenses
ﬁled against African-American youth resulted in conviction.
For violent offenses, the median time frame from ﬁling to adjudication was 126 days for White
youth, compared to 88 days for African-American youth and 97 days for Latino youth.
Of youth not convicted of their original charges, White youth were twice as likely as minority
youth to have their charges reduced to a misdemeanor (13% of White youth vs. 6% of African-
American youth and 5% Latino youth).
H. Attorney
A majority of all three racial/ethnic groups were represented by public defenders. White youth
were twice as likely as African-American youth to have retained private counsel (21% vs. 11%).
20 of 64 11/12/09 9:55 PM
Youth Crime/Adult Time http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/ycat/ycat.html
Youth represented by retained private attorneys were less likely to be convicted and more likely
to be transferred back to juvenile court, regardless of racial/ethnic group.
I. Sentences
African-American (43%) and Latino (37%) youth were more likely than White youth (26%) to
receive a sentence of incarceration (as opposed to split sentences or probation). This held true
when controlling for the adjudicated offense. For example, of those convicted of a violent
offense, 58% of African-American youth and 46% of Latino youth received a sentence of straight
incarceration, compared to 34% of White youth.
Of those sentenced to prison, African-American youth in almost all offense categories had longer
sentences than White or Latino youth.
For those convicted of drug offenses, a lower percentage of African-American youth (37%)
received probation than White youth (44%) or Latino youth (53%).
V. DETAILED FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
This study focuses on case processing of juveniles in the criminal justice system, beginning with case
ﬁling and continuing through to disposition. Two measures of overrepresentation of minority youth are
used in this study. One measure is the difference between the proportion that minority youth
represented in the general juvenile population and their proportion of those arrested for felony offenses.
The second measure is the proportion of minority youth who were arrested for felony offenses and the
proportion that they represented of cases that were ﬁled in criminal court.14
To measure the overrepresentation of minority cases being ﬁled in criminal court requires three sets of
numbers: general population numbers for the speciﬁc age group (namely statutorily deﬁned juveniles);
arrest ﬁgures; and case ﬁling ﬁgures for each racial/ethnic category. Not all the necessary information
was available. General population ﬁgures for the speciﬁc age and racial/ethnic groups and arrest ﬁgures
for all three groups - White, African-American, and Latino youth - were available for 10 of the 18
jurisdictions. In addition, as noted earlier, for arrests Latino youth were combined with White youth in
all jurisdictions.15 Finally, there was an undercount in arrest ﬁgures, where they were available.16
A. Demographics
In the 18 jurisdictions in this study, in the ﬁrst six months of 1998, 82% of the juvenile cases ﬁled in the
criminal courts involved minority youth. (Figure 1) White youth accounted for the remaining 18%. Of
the minority youth, African-Americans constituted the largest group, representing 57% of the total
sample and 70% of the minority youth. Latino youth comprised 23% of the total sample and 28% of
minority youth. American Indians and Asians each made up less than one percent of the total and
minority samples. Because of the small number of juveniles in these two categories, they are not
included in the analyses in this study. Excluding American Indians and Asian, African-American
youth account for 58%, Latino youth 23%, and White youth 19% of the youth whose cases were
ﬁled in the criminal courts in the 18 jurisdictions in this study.
21 of 64 11/12/09 9:55 PM
Youth Crime/Adult Time http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/ycat/ycat.html
The overwhelming number of cases involved male youth, 92% compared to 8% female youth. (Figure
2) African-American male youth represented over half (52%) of the all the cases in this study; Latino
male youth accounted for another 22% of the cases and White male youth for 18% of the cases. About
one out of 20 cases (6%) involved African-American female youth and about one out of 100 cases
involved Latina youth (1%) or White female youth (.8%).
22 of 64 11/12/09 9:55 PM
Youth Crime/Adult Time http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/ycat/ycat.html
The greatest percentage (42%) of juveniles whose cases were ﬁled in criminal court were 17 years of
age. (Figure 3) The age range was 9 to 18 years of age.17 A higher percentage of minority youth than
White youth were represented in the younger age categories. For example, all youth ages 13 or younger
were minority youth (4 African-American and 2 Latino). All but 6% of the 14 year-old males were
minority youth. An even higher percentage of minority females were represented in the younger than
14 years of age categories. There were no White female juveniles age 14 or under whose case was ﬁled
in criminal court. By comparison, 79% of African-American females and 21% of Latina females were
14 or younger. In the 15-18 age categories, the percentage of minority youth was comparable to the
percentage of the total population (i.e., approximately 80%).
23 of 64 11/12/09 9:55 PM
Youth Crime/Adult Time http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/ycat/ycat.html
According to Figure 4, which shows the racial breakdown of the 18 jurisdictions, there were signiﬁcant
differences among the sites. Although White youth represented 19% of the entire sample of cases in the
study, in some of the jurisdictions, White defendants constituted less than 10% of those whose cases
were ﬁled in adult court. This was the case in Baltimore City, Maryland (8%) and all four New York
City boroughs, Kings County, (3%), New York County (6%), Queens County (6%), and Bronx County
with no cases involving White juveniles.
24 of 64 11/12/09 9:55 PM
Youth Crime/Adult Time http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/ycat/ycat.html
Minority youth ranged from 100% of the cases in the Bronx to 60% of the St. Louis County cases. In
six of the jurisdictions, African-American youth made up three-quarters of the entire sample of cases in
the study. In three jurisdictions there were no cases involving Latino youth, including Jefferson County,
Alabama, Marion County, Indiana, and St. Louis County, Missouri. In three other counties the majority
of cases involved Latino youth: Pima County, Arizona (54%) and Los Angeles and Orange Counties,
California (53% and 63%, respectively). Latinos comprised less than 10% of the cases in eight of the
jurisdictions.
B. Felony Arrests
As mentioned earlier, the only group for which overrepresentation could be calculated were African-
American youth. Juvenile population and arrest ﬁgures were used as the baselines to gauge whether the
percentage of African-American youth who were prosecuted in adult court were representative of their
proportion of the juvenile population as well as the proportion of those who were arrested. As Figure 5
shows, in 7 of the 10 jurisdictions, African-American youth were disproportionately arrested for felony
offenses.
25 of 64 11/12/09 9:55 PM
Youth Crime/Adult Time http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/ycat/ycat.html
In 9 of the 10 jurisdictions, African-American youth were disproportionately charged in adult court. In
the ﬁrst instance this means that the proportion of African-American youth who were arrested for
felony was higher than the proportion of African-American youth in the general juvenile population. In
the second instance this means that the proportion of African-American youth whose felony cases were
ﬁled in the adult courts was higher than the proportion of African-American youth who were arrested
for felony offenses. In half of the counties for which arrest information was available, the proportion of
felony charges against African-American youth was about twice the proportion of felony arrests.
In some jurisdictions, the disproportionate number of African-American youth whose cases were ﬁled
in adult court was dramatic. In Jefferson County, Alabama, for example, African-American youth
accounted for approximately 3 out of 10 felony arrests, but represented 8 out of 10 felony cases ﬁled in
criminal court. About one-fourth of all the felony arrests in Harris County, Texas involved African-
American youth, yet they represented over half the juvenile felony cases ﬁled in criminal court.
In only one of the ten jurisdictions, St. Louis County, Missouri, were African-American youth not
over-represented in the number of felony cases ﬁled in adult court (93% of felony arrests and 60% of
felony cases ﬁled in adult court). Yet, it is noteworthy that in St. Louis County the proportion of
African-American youth who were arrested was more than four times higher than the proportion that
they represented in the general juvenile population (93% of felony arrests and 22% of juvenile
26 of 64 11/12/09 9:55 PM
Youth Crime/Adult Time http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/ycat/ycat.html
population).
African-American youth were over-represented especially in drug and public order offense cases ﬁled
in adult court. Although African-American youth accounted for 64% of all juveniles arrested for felony
drug offenses, they represented 76% of the drug offenses that were ﬁled in adult court. Similarly, while
African-American youth accounted for two-thirds (68%) of all youth arrested for public order offenses,
they represented over three-fourths (76%) of all youth whose public order offenses were ﬁled in adult
court.
For certain categories of offenses-drug and public order offenses-the proportion of cases of African-
American youth ﬁled in adult court exceeded the proportion of African-American youth arrested for
those crimes. (Figure 6)African-American youth accounted for 76% of ﬁlings for drug offenses,
compared to 64% of arrests for such offenses. Similarly, African-American youth were
over-represented in the public order cases (primarily for weapons offenses) ﬁled in adult court (76% of
ﬁlings compared to 68% of arrests). On the other hand, the proportion of cases ﬁled against African-
American youth for violent and property offenses was less than their proportion of arrests. For property
and violent offenses, African-American youth were involved in 31% and 50% of such ﬁlings,
respectively, compared to 51% and 62% of arrests, respectively.
There were vast differences among the individual jurisdictions in the patterns of arrests and
prosecutions of African-American youth. For example, for violent offenses, the percentage of African-
American youth who were arrested exceeded the percentage they represented in cases ﬁled for such
offenses in two jurisdictions, St. Louis (86% of arrests and 75% of ﬁlings) and Marion Counties (56%
of arrests and 40% of ﬁlings).
27 of 64 11/12/09 9:55 PM
Youth Crime/Adult Time http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/ycat/ycat.html
For drug offenses this was true in three jurisdictions, Los Angeles and Orange Counties, California and
Baltimore City, Maryland. In Los Angeles County, while one out of ﬁve arrested for drug offenses were
African-American youth, none were prosecuted for drug offenses in adult court. In Orange County,
African-American youth represented only 2% of those arrested for drug offenses and again, none were
prosecuted in adult court. Baltimore City presents a very different picture with African-American youth
accounting for over 90% (93%) of those arrested for drug offenses and slightly fewer (89%) of those
prosecuted for such offenses in adult court.
For property offenses the percentage of African-American youth prosecuted in adult court was higher
than the percentage they represented of those who were arrested for such offenses in ﬁve of the 10
jurisdictions. African-American youth were prosecuted for public order offenses in only three
jurisdictions: Maricopa County, Arizona; Baltimore City, Maryland; and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
All of the youth prosecuted for public order offenses in Philadelphia were African-American and
virtually all (99%) were African-American in Baltimore City. The range of African-American youth
arrested for public order offenses was from 3% in Pima County, Arizona to 96% in St. Louis County,
Missouri.
C. Charges Filed
The processing of felony cases in adult court varies across jurisdictions, but generally follows a similar
path. Persons arrested on a felony offense are brought before a judicial ofﬁcer shortly after arrest for a
review of charges and for initial bail setting. At bail setting, the judicial ofﬁcer has several options,
including granting the defendant non-ﬁnancial release (i.e., release on personal recognizance or with
speciﬁed conditions), setting a ﬁnancial bond, or ordering the defendant detained. If a ﬁnancial bond is
set, the defendant remains detained unless or until the bond is posted.
Adult defendants who are detained pretrial are typically held in the county jail. Detained juveniles who
are prosecuted as adults are either held in the county jail or juvenile detention facility, depending on the
law in the jurisdiction. In many jurisdictions, the prosecutor reviews the charges before the initial court
appearance and ﬁles formal charges at that hearing. In other jurisdictions, the prosecutorial review
occurs later. The case then proceeds to a preliminary hearing or grand jury to determine if there is
sufﬁcient cause to continue prosecution. The case is then put on a trial calendar.
The types of cases that were ﬁled can be categorized as follows: 63% violent offenses, 11% drug
offenses, 20% property offenses, and 6% public order offenses. Again, there were signiﬁcant
differences in individual county ﬁgures. (Figure 7) For example, in certain jurisdictions-California,
New York, Pennsylvania, and Texas-the overwhelming proportion of cases that were ﬁled (around
90%), regardless of defendants' race or ethnicity, were for violent offenses. By contrast, counties in
Florida and Indiana had a high proportion of drug cases, 26% and 31% respectively. Counties in several
states had a higher than average percentage of property cases, including Arizona, Florida, Indiana,
Missouri, and Wisconsin. Well over half (58%) of the cases involving juveniles ﬁled in Marion County,
Indiana were for property crimes; approximately one-third of the cases ﬁled in counties in Arizona and
Florida were for property crimes. One out of four cases in Jefferson County, Alabama and one out of
ﬁve cases in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin were for property crimes.18
28 of 64 11/12/09 9:55 PM
Youth Crime/Adult Time http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/ycat/ycat.html
As Figure 8 indicates, although minority youth represented 81% of the cases, nearly 95% of youth
charged with drug offenses were minorities. African-American youth, who accounted for 58% of all
cases ﬁled in adult court, comprised 85% of all drug cases. On the other hand, African-American youth
were under-represented in the property offense category. Only 41% of all the property offenses
involved African-American youth. Although White youth comprised 19% of the overall cases, they
were 34% of property offenses.
29 of 64 11/12/09 9:55 PM
Youth Crime/Adult Time http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/ycat/ycat.html
More than four out of ﬁve cases prosecuted in the criminal courts of the 18 jurisdictions in this study
involved minority youth. African-American youth accounted for nearly three-ﬁfths of all the cases
prosecuted in criminal court. To put this ﬁnding in perspective, arrest ﬁgures were examined for the 18
jurisdictions. As mentioned earlier, complete information was available for only 10 of the 18
jurisdictions.19 These showed that for most jurisdictions, African-American youth were
over-represented, especially for drug and public order offenses.
As Figure 9 shows, drug cases were ﬁled against African-American youth at ﬁve times the rate of
White youth (17% versus 3%) and over three times the rate of Latino youth (5%). Arrests of African-
American youth for drug offenses did not account for these disparities. Twice as many African-
American youth were charged with public order offenses (mostly attributable to weapons offenses) as
White youth (8% versus 4%).
30 of 64 11/12/09 9:55 PM
Youth Crime/Adult Time http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/ycat/ycat.html
On the other hand, the most prevalent overall charge category was violent offenses, accounting for 63%
of all the cases, regardless of race or ethnicity of the defendant.20 The most overall prevalent charge
type was robbery, with over one-third (35%) of the entire sample having been charged with this offense.
Robbery was the most serious charge in over 37% of the cases for both African-American and Latino
youth and a somewhat lesser percentage in cases involving White juveniles (24%). The next most
prevalent charge overall was assault, for which one out of ﬁve of all youth were charged. There were
only slight (not statistically signiﬁcant) differences among the percentages of African-American, White,
and Latino youth who were charged with assault, 18%, 22%, and 23%, respectively. In addition, two
and one half times more White youth than African-American youth were charged with a property crime
(36% versus 14%). Latino youth fell in between, with one out of ﬁve (21%) being charged with a
property offense. In all these cases, arrest ﬁgures cannot explain the disparities.
D. Charging Mechanism
As shown in Figure 10, in the 18 jurisdictions in this study, direct ﬁling was the most prevalent ﬁling
mechanism (45%), three times more prevalent than judicial waiver (15%).21 Another two out of ﬁve
were ﬁled by means of a statutory exclusion (40%). Thus, judges were not involved in most
determinations (85%) whether to charge a juvenile as an adult. For African-American youth, judges
were involved in even fewer determinations. Almost 90% of African-American youth charged with
31 of 64 11/12/09 9:55 PM
Youth Crime/Adult Time http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/ycat/ycat.html
violent offenses had their cases ﬁled by direct ﬁling or statutory exclusion, and more than 90% of those
charged with drug offenses had their cases ﬁled by direct ﬁling or statutory exclusion.
Looking speciﬁcally at African-American youth, they were least likely to have their charges ﬁled in
criminal court by means of judicial waiver (11% compared to 16% of White youth and 25% of Latino).
The most prevalent ﬁling mechanism for African-American youth was statutory exclusion (50%),
followed by direct ﬁling (41%), whereas for White and Latino youth the most prevalent ﬁling
mechanism was direct ﬁling (61% and 45%, respectively).
E. Pretrial Release and Detention
The decision to whether to release or detain a person charged in the adult system is one of the most
important facing a judicial ofﬁcer. Research has found that adult criminal defendants detained pretrial
plead guilty or are convicted more often, and are sentenced to prison more often than defendants
released pretrial,22 even when controlling for such relevant factors as current charge, prior criminal
history, community ties, and type of counsel.
The majority of all youth in this study (57%) were released prior to disposition of the case. The release
rates did not differ signiﬁcantly among the three groups of defendants: 58% of African-American
32 of 64 11/12/09 9:55 PM
Youth Crime/Adult Time http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/ycat/ycat.html
youth, 60% of White youth, and 51% of Latino youth.23(Figure 11)
As could be expected, the release rate for all youth was lowest for violent offenses. Nevertheless, even
in this category, a majority of African-American and White youth were released pending disposition of
their cases, as well as almost 48% of Latino youth.(Figure 12) Indeed, there were no statistically
signiﬁcant differences in the release rate for the three major racial/ethnic groups where the most serious
charge was a violent offense. In the other categories of offenses, substantially over half of all youth
were released.
33 of 64 11/12/09 9:55 PM
Youth Crime/Adult Time http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/ycat/ycat.html
Among youth charged with a drug offense, White youth were most likely to be released (86%)
compared to 69% of African-American youth and 73% of Latino youth. The data were further analyzed
to determine if African-American youth were charged with more serious drug offenses (i.e., drug sales
as opposed to possession charges). The ﬁndings showed that in sheer numbers there were many more
African-American youth (155) charged with drug trafﬁcking offenses than either White (10) or Latino
(14) youth. As a proportion of all drug offenses, however, the groups did not differ signiﬁcantly. About
two-thirds of both African-American and White youth whose cases were ﬁled in adult court were
charged with a drug sales or trafﬁcking as opposed to drug possession charge.
The release rates for African-American youth charged with a public order offense and White youth
differed slightly (71% versus 75%); the percentage of Latino youth who were charged with a public
order offense and released was lower than the other groups (62%).
When site-by-site release decisions were examined, there was a wide range of ﬁndings across sites.
(Figure 13)Overall most sites released more juveniles than they detained. However, in three sites - Los
Angeles and Orange Counties, California and Harris County, Texas - around 90% of their entire sample
was detained pending trial. In 10 jurisdictions African-American youth were more likely to be released
than detained. In eight of the jurisdictions Latino youth were more likely to be released. White youth
were more likely to be released in 12 of the 18 jurisdictions. White youth were more likely than
African-American youth to achieve release pretrial in 12 of seventeen of the sites (Bronx County, New
York had no White youth in its sample).
34 of 64 11/12/09 9:55 PM
Youth Crime/Adult Time http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/ycat/ycat.html
1. Conditions of Release
With few exceptions, criminal defendants are entitled to bail.24 Judges may set ﬁnancial or non-ﬁnancial
conditions of bail. Money bonds that are imposed may be posted in a variety of ways - cash in the full
amount of the bond, a percentage of the bond in the form of a deposit bond or property bond posted
directly with the court, or one promised by a commercial or surety bondsman.25 Non-ﬁnancial release
conditions that may be imposed run the gamut from a defendant's simple promise to appear ("own
recognizance" bond) to intensive supervision by a public or private agency. Conditions may include
restrictions on alcohol consumption, possession of weapons, travel, association with certain individuals,
whereabouts or residence, reporting to third parties, admission to and attendance at particular programs,
and continued employment.
Judges take many factors into consideration when setting bond, including those related to the case and
defendant characteristics. These factors include seriousness of the charge, the strength of the case,
defendant's community ties, prior criminal record, and prior appearance history, to name a few. The
factors are considered indicators of the defendant's likelihood of appearing in court and not posing a
danger to the community. Only one factor was addressed in this study, the seriousness of the offense.
Of African-American youth released prior to disposition, half were released on ﬁnancial conditions and
the other half on non-ﬁnancial conditions. (Figure 14) Of Latino youth over two-thirds (68%) were
released on non-ﬁnancial conditions. The opposite was true for White youth, two-ﬁfths were released
on non-ﬁnancial (40%) and the other three-ﬁfths on ﬁnancial conditions (60%).
35 of 64 11/12/09 9:55 PM
Youth Crime/Adult Time http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/ycat/ycat.html
Of those released on ﬁnancial conditions (bond), the average bond for African-American youth was
signiﬁcantly lower than for White youth, and the average bond for White youth was signiﬁcantly lower
than for Latino youth. Examining release conditions by charge type revealed that the racial/ethnic
differences were more pronounced in the violent offense category. White youth were least likely to be
released on non-ﬁnancial conditions (31%) and Latino youth most likely (71%). (Figure 15)African-
American youth fell in the middle with 56% released on non-ﬁnancial conditions.
36 of 64 11/12/09 9:55 PM
Youth Crime/Adult Time http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/ycat/ycat.html
In the drug category, the percentages of White and African-American youth who were released on
non-ﬁnancial conditions were quite different: 60% of the White youth were released on non-ﬁnancial
conditions compared to 37% of the African-American youth. Nearly three-fourths of the Latino youth
(73%) charged with a drug offense were released on non-ﬁnancial conditions. For property offenses the
percentage of African-American youth released on non-ﬁnancial conditions (43%) was lower than for
either White (53%) or Latino youth (58%). Only one out of four White youth charged with a public
order offense were released on non-ﬁnancial conditions compared to two out of ﬁve African-American
youth (42%) and three out of ﬁve Latino youth (62%).
The means by which each of the three groups posted a ﬁnancial bond were also examined. Over 60% of
those released on ﬁnancial conditions posted a surety bond; 61% of African-American, 67% of White,
and 64% of Latino youth. Surety bond release refers to release that is secured by hiring a bail bond
agent, and paying a fee, usually 10% of the full amount of the bond, to assume the liability for the bond
to the court.26
The three groups had statistically signiﬁcant different mean surety bonds. The mean or average surety
bond that African-American youth posted was $8,761. This compared with $10,174 for White youth
and $13,556 for Latino youth.
37 of 64 11/12/09 9:55 PM
Youth Crime/Adult Time http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/ycat/ycat.html
2. Time from Filing to Release
Perhaps the most striking ﬁnding in the study is that a large percentage of all youth were released the
same day as their cases were ﬁled in the criminal courts. (Table 16) Speciﬁcally, over half of African-
American and Latino youth (54% and 52%, respectively) were released within 24 hours of case ﬁling,
as were 41% of White youth. It took up to ﬁve days to achieve release for a majority of White youth
(51%).
A majority of both African-American and Latino youth charged with a violent offense were released
within 24 hours of their cases being ﬁled in adult court, 56% and 55%, respectively; while 48% of
White youth were released within this period. (Figure 17)Over two-thirds African-American youth
(70%) and three-ﬁfths Latino youth (63%) charged with a violent offense were released within ﬁve days
of case ﬁling, as were 51% of White youth.
38 of 64 11/12/09 9:55 PM
Youth Crime/Adult Time http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/ycat/ycat.html
In property crime cases the percentages were similar. (Figure 18)Over half of African-American youth
(51%) charged with a property offense were released within 24 hours of ﬁling, while 32% of White
youth and 43% of Latino youth were likewise released. Within 10 days of ﬁling two-thirds of African-
American youth charged with property crimes were released compared to just over half of White (51%)
and nearly 60% of Latino youth (59.6%).
39 of 64 11/12/09 9:55 PM
Youth Crime/Adult Time http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/ycat/ycat.html
There were too few White and Latino youth charged with a drug offense who were released to make
comparisons with African-American youth. Similarly, the numbers were extremely small for those
charged with public order offenses, but the percentages mirror those of the violent and property
categories.
3. Reason for Pretrial Detention
An overwhelming percentage of all detained youth were held because of their inability to post bail;
nearly three-fourths (72%) of both African-American and White youth were in this category as were
85% of Latino youth. (Figure 19)About the same percentages of both African-American and White
youth, one out of ﬁve, were held without bail (20% and 18%, respectively); 13% of Latino youth were
in this category. A slightly larger percentage of White youth than African-American youth were held on
another charge (10% versus 9%); fewer than 2% of Latino youth were in this category.
40 of 64 11/12/09 9:55 PM
Youth Crime/Adult Time http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/ycat/ycat.html
According to Figure 20, the median and mean bail that Latino youth could not post ($50,000 and
$169,550, respectively) were signiﬁcantly higher than those for African-American ($15,000 and
$62,712) youth or White youth ($15,800 and $108,364).
41 of 64 11/12/09 9:55 PM
Youth Crime/Adult Time http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/ycat/ycat.html
Again what is interesting is the range of the bail amounts that were set. While a higher percentage of
Latino youth were released on non-ﬁnancial conditions, those who had ﬁnancial conditions set had
higher amounts imposed. Half of all the Latino youth unable to post bond had a bond of $50,000,
requiring a minimum of $5,000 to secure release. This compares with half of White and African-
American youth not being able to post bonds of around $15,000 requiring depositing $1,500 and
$1,580, respectively, of the full bond amount.
F. Place of Pretrial Detention
State law typically determines where juveniles are held pretrial when they are charged in adult court. In
some states, local authorities have discretion to detain youth in adult jails or juvenile facilities. In this
study, majorities of both African-American and White youth were detained in an adult jail pending case
disposition. (Figure 21)However, the percentage of African-American youth who were detained in an
adult jail pending case disposition was signiﬁcantly higher than White youth (70% versus 63%). In
contrast, more than half (51%) of Latino youth were held in a juvenile facility pretrial.
42 of 64 11/12/09 9:55 PM
Youth Crime/Adult Time http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/ycat/ycat.html
Examining each institutional setting speciﬁcally, African-American youth were over-represented in
adult jails and under-represented in juvenile facilities. (Figure 22)Although African-Americans
represented 58% of all cases, they accounted for 64% of those held in the general adult inmate
population of a jail, 65% of those held in an adult jail separate from the general population, and only
48% of those held in a juvenile facility. White youth, who represented 19% of all the cases, constituted
about 17% of those held in a juvenile facility and 18% of those held separately in an adult jail. They
were under-represented (13%) in the category of youth held in the general population of an adult jail.
Latino youth comprised 35% of all youth held in juvenile facilities although they only represented 23%
of the total number of cases. They were underrepresented (17%), however, in the group held separately
in adult jails.
43 of 64 11/12/09 9:55 PM
Youth Crime/Adult Time http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/ycat/ycat.html
The type of charges for which a juvenile is prosecuted may be a determining factor in where he or she
is detained. There were only sufﬁcient numbers in the violent charge category to allow comparisons
across the three groups of youth. (Figure 23)African-American youth were over-represented in the
group held in adult facilities (64%), while White and Latino youth were held there in numbers
approximately proportionate to their share of all cases, 15% and 21%, respectively. Of those who were
held in juvenile facilities pending adjudication for a violent offense, African-American and White youth
were slightly underrepresented, 50% and 14%, respectively, while Latino youth, with 35% were
over-represented.
44 of 64 11/12/09 9:55 PM
Youth Crime/Adult Time http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/ycat/ycat.html
There were differences across the 18 jurisdictions. In four of the jurisdictions in the study virtually all
of the juveniles awaiting trial in adult court were held in an adult jail (Pima, Marion, St. Louis, and
Harris Counties). (Figure 24) In all four New York City counties, all the juveniles were held in a
juvenile facility. In the remaining 10 jurisdictions, juveniles were held either in an adult jail or a
juvenile facility.
45 of 64 11/12/09 9:55 PM
Youth Crime/Adult Time http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/ycat/ycat.html
G. Results of Prosecution
In one-fourth of the cases (26%), there was no conviction. These included cases where the defendant
was acquitted or placed on diversion, where the prosecutor declined to prosecute the case, or the court
dismissed the case or deferred judgment on the case. In another 10% of the cases, the adult court
ordered the case transferred back to the juvenile court for ﬁnal disposition. A conviction was the ﬁnal
disposition in 64% of the cases. (Figure 25)
46 of 64 11/12/09 9:55 PM
Youth Crime/Adult Time http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/ycat/ycat.html
The differences by race were remarkable. Overall, African-American youth were much less likely to be
convicted, and more likely to be transferred back to juvenile court, than White or Latino youth. Less
than half of African-American youth charged with violent and public order offenses were convicted.
Although African-American youth represented 58% of the sample, they constituted 68% of those not
convicted, and 73% of those transferred back to juvenile court. On the other hand, White youth
represented 19% of the sample, but 14% of those not convicted and around 9% of those transferred
back to juvenile court. Latino youth represented 23% of the sample, but 18% of both those not
convicted and transferred back to juvenile court.
An examination of how the cases of each of the racial/ethnic groups were disposed depicts a similar
picture. (Figure 26) Only 57% of African-American cases led to conviction - 43% were either not
convicted or transferred back to juvenile court. Smaller percentages of Latino (28%) and White youth
(24%) cases were not convicted or transferred back to juvenile court.
47 of 64 11/12/09 9:55 PM
Youth Crime/Adult Time http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/ycat/ycat.html
For all categories of offenses, except drug offenses, African-American youth had the lowest conviction
rate and the highest rate of transfers back to juvenile court. In drug cases, however, a different trend
was evident, whereby 81% of African-American were convicted, 17% not convicted, and only 2%
transferred back to juvenile court. This compares to two-thirds of both White and Latino youth who
were convicted of a drug offense. (Figure 27)It should be noted that there were very few youth other
than African-Americans whose drug cases were ﬁled in adult court.
48 of 64 11/12/09 9:55 PM
Youth Crime/Adult Time http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/ycat/ycat.html
For violent offenses White youth had the highest conviction rate (70%), followed closely by Latino
youth with a conviction rate of 65%. Less than half (46%) of African-American youth were convicted
of a violent offense. In fact, one out of ﬁve African-American youth whose cases were adjudicated as a
violent offense had their cases transferred back to juvenile court. As noted above, statutory exclusion
was the ﬁling mechanism used in two-thirds of the violent cases ﬁled against African-American youth
compared to about one-third for the other two groups.
The percentage of juveniles who were convicted of property offenses was consistently high across the
three groups; 77% of African-American, 83% of White, and 88% of Latino were convicted.
Latino youth had the highest conviction rate for pubic order offenses and the conviction rate for White
youth was not far behind at 82%. There were very few Latino and White youth whose public order
cases were ﬁled in adult court. Three-fourths of all public order cases involved African-American
youth. As with violent cases, less than half (45%) of the public order cases resulted in a conviction.
A county-by-county examination revealed that in 14 of the 18 jurisdictions, a higher percentage of
African-American youth than White youth had their cases disposed by other than a conviction. (Figure
28)Out of the ten counties in which cases were transferred back to juvenile court, in six of the counties
African-American youth were more likely than White youth and in two others as likely to have their
49 of 64 11/12/09 9:55 PM
Youth Crime/Adult Time http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/ycat/ycat.html
cases transferred.
1. Adjudicated Charge
Another way to examine whether cases involving juveniles were appropriately ﬁled in adult court is to
examine the extent to which youth who were convicted at all were convicted of the original charges. A
comparison between originally ﬁled charges and adjudicated charges found that an overwhelming
majority of youth were indeed convicted of the original charges. A difference was found in the
percentage of youth who were ultimately convicted of a misdemeanor. White juveniles were more
likely to be adjudicated of a misdemeanor than the other two groups, 13% compared to 6% of both
Latino youth and African-American youth. (Figure 29)It is noteworthy that almost 20% of White youth
and more than 15% of African-American youth charged with felony property offense were ultimately
adjudicated for a misdemeanor. (Figure 30)
50 of 64 11/12/09 9:55 PM
Youth Crime/Adult Time http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/ycat/ycat.html
2. Pretrial Release/Detention Status
Over one-third (35%) of African-American youth who were ultimately not convicted were detained
pretrial. This compares with 19% of Latino and 16% of White youth with the same outcome who were
detained pending disposition of their cases. African-American youth comprised three-fourths of those
detained in adult jails who were not convicted; Latino and White youth each accounted for another 10%
and 11%, respectively. (Figure 31)
51 of 64 11/12/09 9:55 PM
Youth Crime/Adult Time http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/ycat/ycat.html
3. Time from Filing to Adjudication
There were no statistically signiﬁcant differences among the three racial/ethnic groups as far as the time
from ﬁling to adjudication. A slightly higher percentage of American-African youth had their cases
adjudicated within 30 days (24%) than White youth (13%) or Latino youth (18%). (Figure 32)The
median time for all cases to be adjudicated was 91 days. For African-American youth the median time
was 86 days, compared to 104 days for White youth and 94 days for Latino youth. (Figure 33)
52 of 64 11/12/09 9:55 PM
Youth Crime/Adult Time http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/ycat/ycat.html
H. Attorney
Although African-American youth were 58% of the sample, only 40% had a retained private attorney.
(Figure 34)Conversely, although White youth were 19% of the sample, 33% had a retained private
53 of 64 11/12/09 9:55 PM
Youth Crime/Adult Time http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/ycat/ycat.html
attorney. The implications for African-American youth were considerable. Public defenders often labor
under enormous caseloads, and assigned counsel often have little training or experience in representing
juveniles. Private retained counsel often have limited caseloads and more resources to devote to
representation of each client. Thus, in this study youth who were represented by private retained
counsel were less likely to be convicted of a felony and more likely to have their cases transferred to
juvenile court.
Examining each group individually shows that a majority of all juveniles were represented by a public
defender, with 63% African-American, 59% White, and 57% Latino youth having had such
representation. (Figure 35)The percentage of White juveniles who retained private counsel was nearly
twice as high as African-American youth (21% compared to 11%); 16% of Latino juveniles had
retained private representation.
54 of 64 11/12/09 9:55 PM
Youth Crime/Adult Time http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/ycat/ycat.html
For all three groups, the percentage of those convicted of a felony was lower for those with private
retained counsel. Over three-fourths of African-American juveniles with a public defender were
convicted versus 63% of those with a private retained attorney. (Figure 36)Most signiﬁcant is the
percentage of juveniles whose cases were transferred back to juvenile court. Four times the percentage
of White juveniles with private retained counsel (8%) had their cases transferred back to juvenile court
than those with a public defender (2%) and more than twice the percentage with assigned counsel (3%).
Twice as many African-American youth with retained private counsel were transferred back to juvenile
court as those represented by public defenders (13% versus 7%), and ﬁve times as many as those with
assigned counsel (3%).
55 of 64 11/12/09 9:55 PM
Youth Crime/Adult Time http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/ycat/ycat.html
I. Sentences
Across all crime categories, African-American youth had the highest percentage of those for whom a
sentence of incarceration was imposed (versus probation, split sentence of incarceration and probation,
or commitment to a juvenile facility). (Figure 37)
56 of 64 11/12/09 9:55 PM
Youth Crime/Adult Time http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/ycat/ycat.html
Of those convicted of a violent offense 58% of African-American youth received a sentence of
straight incarceration, compared to 34% of White youth and 46% of Latino youth.
When convicted of a drug offense African-American youth were slightly more likely than White
youth to receive a sentence of straight incarceration, 37% versus 33%, with Latino youth at 24%.
When convicted of a property offense African-American youth and Latino youth were more
likely to receive an incarceration sentence than White youth (25% and 24%, respectively versus
19%).
The same pattern existed for public order offenses, with African-American youth more likely to
receive sentences of incarceration (25%), followed by Latino youth (21%), then White youth
(13%).
African-American youth also received more severe treatment when considering sentences that
included some incarceration (i.e., straight incarceration or split sentences).
For those convicted of a violent offense, African-American youth were twice as likely as White
57 of 64 11/12/09 9:55 PM
Youth Crime/Adult Time http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/ycat/ycat.html
youth to receive a sentence that included some incarceration, 48% compared to 22%. Latino
youth fell in between with 31% receiving such a sentence.
The differences among the three groups were most dramatic in the drug offense category. While
only 4% of White youth and 7% of Latino youth, respectively, received any incarceration, 89% of
African-American youth received such a sentence.
African-American youth were over four times as likely as White youth to receive some term of
incarceration for a conviction of a public order offense, 53% compared to 13%. About one-third
of Latino youth (34%) received such a sentence
For the most part, African-American youth were less likely than either White or Latino youth to receive
probation, although the differences were not as great as for sentences of incarceration. White youth
were most likely to receive a probation sentence with the exception of drug offenses, for which Latino
youth had the highest percentage receiving a probation sentence.
Of those convicted of a violent offense, 17% of both African-American and White youth received
a sentence of probation compared to 28% of Latino youth.
For those convicted of a drug offense, 37% of African-American youth received probation,
compared to 44% of White youth and over half (53)% of Latino youth.
For those convicted of a property offense, 32% of African-American youth received probation,
compared to 36% of Latino youth and 42% of White youth.
Sixty percent of White youth convicted of a public order offense received probation, compared to
43% of African-American youth and 33% of Latino youth.
There were no consistent patterns in sentencing across the 18 jurisdictions in the study. (Figure 38)In
six jurisdictions a higher percentage of African-American youth than White youth received a sentence
of strictly probation. In seven jurisdictions, a higher percentage of Latino youth than White youth
received such a sentence. On the other hand, only in two jurisdictions (Jefferson, Alabama and Marion,
Indiana) did a higher percentage of White youth receive a sentence of incarceration.
58 of 64 11/12/09 9:55 PM
Youth Crime/Adult Time http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/ycat/ycat.html
An examination of the length of incarceration indicates similarly mixed ﬁndings. (Figure 39)African-
American and White youth had the same median of a six-month jail term imposed, whereas the median
jail term for Latino youth was four months. African-American youth had a higher median number of
months of a prison term than either White or Latino youth, 60 months maximum compared to 48
months, respectively.
59 of 64 11/12/09 9:55 PM
Youth Crime/Adult Time http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/ycat/ycat.html
There are no obvious patterns across crime categories with respect to the median length of incarceration
imposed. (Figure 40)
60 of 64 11/12/09 9:55 PM
Youth Crime/Adult Time http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/ycat/ycat.html
For those convicted of a violent offense, the median length of a jail term was identical for
African-American and White youth, which was twice that for Latino youth, 12 months as
opposed to 6 months.
There was only one White youth who received a prison term for a drug offense conviction. There
were 17 African-American youth who were sentenced to prison for a drug offense conviction. No
Latino youth was sentenced to prison.
For those convicted of a property crime, the median jail term was twice as high for African-
American youth (six months) as White youth (three months) and even higher for Latino youth
(seven months). The median prison term was highest for African-American youth (54 months),
followed by White youth (48 months), and then Latino youth (42 months).
African-American youth had a six times higher median jail term than White youth and four times
as high as Latino youth, 12 months compared to two and three months, respectively. The
differences between African-American and White youth are even more dramatic in the median
length of maximum prison sentences, with the former receiving 36 months compared to one
month for the latter. The median maximum prison term was 24 months for Latino youth.
61 of 64 11/12/09 9:55 PM
Youth Crime/Adult Time http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/ycat/ycat.html
VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Many ﬁndings, including overall high release rates, high non-conviction rates, and high probation rates,
suggest that the cases ﬁled in adult court were not very serious or not very strong. Without the beneﬁt
of information speciﬁcally intended to measure the seriousness of the offenses or the strength of the
cases in this study, conclusions cannot be drawn to implicate the manner in which ﬁling decisions were
made. The ﬁndings in this study can bring to light the complexity of case processing and point to the
need for further research speciﬁcally focused on screening criteria and procedures. Without complete
arrest ﬁgures or general population ﬁgures, the issue of overrepresentation was examined in a limited
way. Effort should be made to ﬁll this gap of information.
The patterns of disparity were mixed. For certain offenses and for certain decisions in some
jurisdictions, minority youth, especially African-American youth, were treated more severely than
White youth charged with similar offenses. These disparities, however, were not manifested
consistently in one direction. African-American youth were released in higher numbers and transferred
back to juvenile court in higher numbers than White youth, yet, upon conviction, they were sentenced
to incarceration in higher numbers than White youth. The disparate ﬁndings provide impetus for further
studies of the treatment of similarly situated minority and White youth in the justice system.
Most importantly perhaps, the ﬁndings should prompt further thought about and research on the
wisdom and cost-effectiveness of the increased use of adult courts to prosecute juveniles. There were
several ﬁndings that should give us the proverbial food for thought regarding the appropriateness of
prosecuting children, particularly African-American children, in adult courts. Most decisions to
prosecute were not made by judges. Nearly two-thirds of the juveniles were held in adult facilities
pending disposition of their cases. In a quarter of the cases, youth were not convicted. An additional
10% the cases were transferred back to juvenile court. Less than half of African-American juveniles
charged with violent offenses were convicted, with one out of ﬁve transferred to juvenile court for
disposition.
Perhaps the most signiﬁcant contribution of this research is the spotlight it throws on those aspects of
the system that appear to work contrary to traditional reasons for prosecution of youth in adult court.
The decision to prosecute a juvenile as an adult has momentous consequences for the individual
involved. This study found that nearly two-thirds of the juveniles detained pretrial were held in adult
jails pending disposition of their cases. Of those, one-third were conﬁned with the general adult inmate
population. Yet, the overall high pretrial release rates (often with no bail required), high non-conviction
rates, and high probation rates suggest that the cases ﬁled in adult court in many instances may not be
sufﬁciently serious or strong. Since most states have committed themselves to increased prosecution of
juveniles in adult court, this is clearly an area that requires additional research, policy review, and new
legislation to ensure that young people are not unnecessarily and inappropriately swept up into the adult
criminal justice system.
ENDNOTES
1. Eileen Poe-Yamagata and Michael A. Jones (2000) And Justice for Some: Differential Treatment
of Minority Youth in the Justice System, Washington, D.C.: Building Blocks for Youth.
2. "Juvenile Transfers to Criminal Court in the 1990's: Lessons Learned from Four Jurisdictions"
(2000), Washington, D.C.: Ofﬁce of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
62 of 64 11/12/09 9:55 PM
Youth Crime/Adult Time http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/ycat/ycat.html
3. Howard N. Snyder and Melissa Sickmund (1999) Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999 National
Report, Washington, D.C.: Ofﬁce of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
4. The information was gathered from more than 1,900 jurisdictions representing nearly 70 percent
of the U.S. juvenile population.
5. Charles M. Puzzanchera (2000) Delinquency Cases Waived to Criminal Court, 1988-1997,
Washington, D.C.; Ofﬁce of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
6. Mike Males and Dan Macallair (2000) The Color of Justice: An Analysis of Juvenile Adult Court
Transfers in California, Washington, D.C.: Building Blocks for Youth.
7. Bureau of Data and Research: Research Digest (1998) "Minority Representation at Various
Stages of the Juvenile Justice System 1996-97, Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, Executive
Services.
8. Disproportionate Minority Representation Task Force (1995) The Disproportionate
Representation of African-American Youth at Various Decision Points in the State of Maryland,
Baltimore: Maryland Department of Juvenile Justice.
9. Ohio Department of Youth Services (1994) Juveniles Transferred to Adult Court in Ohio:
Calendar Year 1994, Columbus, Ohio.
10. Marcy Rasmussen Podkoppacz and Barry C. Feld (1996) "The End of the Line: An Empirical
Study of Judicial Waiver," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol. 86.
11. General Accounting Ofﬁce (1995) Juvenile Justice: Juveniles Processed in Criminal Court and
Case Dispositions, Washington, D.C.
12. Supra, note 1.
13. Timothy C. Hart and Brian A. Reaves (1999) Felony Defendants in Large Urban Counties, 1996
Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
14. The overrepresentation of minority youth in the ranks of those who are arrested in the United
States has been well documented. Supra note 1.
15. Information was either not available, as in the case of all Florida counties (Dade, Hillsborough,
and Orange) and Milwaukee County or not available in the necessary categories, as was the case
for all New York Counties (Bronx, Kings, New York, and Queens).
16. In some jurisdictions in this study the number of cases of juveniles ﬁled in adult court exceeded
the number of arrests of juveniles. E.g., Jefferson County had 65 felony cases ﬁled in the ﬁrst half
year of 1998, yet according to the FBI numbers there were only 63 arrests for a felony during
calendar year 1998.
17. There was one 9 year-old African-American male in the sample. Another 2% (53) were 18 years
of age at the time the case was ﬁled in the adult court. Several states deﬁne juveniles as those
youth who had turned 18 at the time their cases are ﬁled, or at the time of arrest, as long as the
alleged offense was committed prior to the 18th birthday.
18. There were too few White youth in all the New York counties to allow for meaningful
comparisons; similarly, there were too few in the samples of the Missouri and Wisconsin
samples.
19. Only arrests for juveniles using each state's deﬁnition of the term were included. Therefore,
Florida counties and Milwaukee County, for which arrest information was only available for 18
year-olds or younger were eliminated from the calculations. New York counties were not
included because only aggregate arrest numbers, and not for certain racial/ethnic groups, were
available.
20. Gender based analyzes were not performed because female youth represent less then 10% of the
cases.
63 of 64 11/12/09 9:55 PM
Youth Crime/Adult Time http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/ycat/ycat.html
21. Judicial waiver also includes judicial remand and certiﬁcation.
22. Anne Rankin (1964) "The Effect of Pretrial Detention," New York University Law Review,
volume 39.
23. Of those released, 59% were African-American youth compared to the 58% of the sample they
represented; 20% of White youth and 21% of Latino youth.
24. Criminal defendants are guaranteed the right to bail that is not excessive by the Eighth
Amendment of the United States Constitution. Capital offenses and those punishable by life in
prison are exceptions to this right in most jurisdictions.
25. State law and local rules dictate the manner in which bail may be posted.
26. The defendant secures release by means of a "cash bond" by posting the entire amount of the
bond. "Deposit bond" release refers to posting a deposit directly with the court but remaining
liable for the entire amount. The terms of a "property bond" are usually that a defendant puts up
the property, which typically is worth the entire value of the bond, as collateral for the bond.
Return to Table of Contents
Home / Juvenile Justice Issues / State-by-State Info / Research
Newsroom / About Us / BBY Partners / Contact us
Building Blocks for Youth
For a fair and effective youth justice system
...a comprehensive effort to protect minority youth in the justice system
and to promote rational and effective juvenile justice policies...
64 of 64 11/12/09 9:55 PM